Thanks for weighing in, both (and I know we've covered this ground before). With three crime scenes, it must seem a certainty. I guess the reason the prospect seems dismal to me is in statements like this:
"The DNA samples will be compared to DNA recovered during the Varaschin investigation, police said. If no match is found for a particular sample, that sample and all associated documentation will be destroyed. The men who provide samples will be notified via letters once it is determined their DNA does not match that recovered in the investigation" (
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-to-obtain-voluntary-dna-samples-in-varaschin-probe) against discussion on a thread for Sonia (on another site) where one poster, who claimed to be "of interest" to LE, indicated he had been approached for a sample, gave it, and never received the 'exoneration' letter. (And obviously he has not been charged.)
It's also this statement from Karski that made me panic (I saw the presser): "We believe we have the killers DNA and its only a matter of time" (
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-believe-they-will-soon-catch-varaschin-killer) -- it's the "we believe" that is so worrisome to me. In most press reports journos lopped off "we believe" for LE announcing "we HAVE" the DNA -- so that's the statement most people "heard." But it's not actually what Karski said. (There's a qualitative difference, for me, between stating we believe we'll catch the perp and we believe we have DNA. One should be a supposition that follows from the fact of the other. But maybe LE couches the claim outside of certainty for legal reasons? Or could they have commenced testing prior to the first results from the scenes coming back from the labs?). As a little aside: I of course don't blame LE if this WAS a smokeout strategy -- I commend them! I support every strong effort to solve this nightmare -- I just fervently hope it wasn't this.
Interesting, from the same first article above:
"OPP Const. Peter Leon said the DNA sampling marks a new phase in the nine-month-old investigation, though he added police have no new information to release. 'Investigators have been working on various leads and this is where its taken them,' he said. 'This is a new phase in the investigation, and this new course could be the turning stone.' DNA sampling is a rarely used investigative technique. Const. Leon said he knew of only a few cases in Ontario in which it had been used. 'DNA sampling is certainly not very common,' said Hamish Stewart, associate professor at the University of Toronto Law School. 'But in general, its a very useful investigative technique.' Prof. Stewart said the primary reason DNA sampling is so rare is due to the costs, both financial and in terms of work" (
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-to-obtain-voluntary-dna-samples-in-varaschin-probe)
How is it (only) "leads" (like targeted individuals) and not science that leads to the new phase?
Anyway, I'll stop now. I don't think my insistence is actually helpful here. I'm not even sure this is useful to post. I think I'm feeling anxious because it is now the 6-year mark -- it's Sunday today, and tomorrow is Monday, and although the timelines aren't fully clear, we do know this is the window. If I'm feeling so anxious, I can only imagine how Sonia's friends and family feel this weekend. My heart goes out to them. Hoping for some online, print, or televised news to mark this time -- and maybe give some glimmer of hope for justice and closure.
